High Table Limited v Horst, Jowett and and Burley: CA 1 Jul 1997

The place where an employee was employed for the purposes of the employer’s business was to be determined by a consideration of the factual circumstances which obtained until the dismissal. Where an employee had worked in only one location under his contract of employment for the purposes of the employer’s business then it defied common sense to widen the extent of the place where he was so employed mainly because of the existence of a mobility clause: ‘If the work of the employee for his employer has involved the change of location, as would be the place where the nature of the work required the employee to go from place to place, then the contract of employment may be helpful to determine the extent of the place where the employee was employed. But it cannot be right to let the contract be the sole determinate regardless of where the employee actually worked for the employer’.
In addressing the questions it has to determine, an ET is not obliged to resolve (or address in its Judgment) every issue of fact or law put before it by a party.


Evans, Peter Gibson, Hobhouse LJJ


Times 09-Jul-1997, Gazette 16-Jul-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2000, [1997] IRLR 513, [1998] ICR 409




Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 81(2)


England and Wales


See AlsoHorst and others v High Table Ltd EAT 23-May-1994
. .
Appeal fromHorst and others v High Table Ltd EAT 23-Apr-1996
. .
CitedMeek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.142397